The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

So to summarize pakistan wants water security. A joint admin in the valley & on that basis a mechanism to ensure their water security could be looked at as an option.

They already have water security. India has never blocked water to Pak in the past 60 years. Not even during wars.

Why they want it? Because the water also flows through Indian Punjab as well.That is what they want to control.
You need to read more about Pakistan's obsession about "Mughal rule in India".

The joint admin solution means both nations have a say in kashmir. I think it addresses the issue you raise.

As I said,Kashmir is not the issue. It wont be stopped by joint admin.

The jihadis will oppose any solution short of ascension of kashmir to pak. Its upto pakistan & India to see how they get around that. It will not work if both nations are not serious & I believe that pakistan needs to do significantly more to rein down the influence these elements have on its society ( do consider the fact that pak uses LET primarily as a strategic bet against india in kashmir). But thats what talks are for. I don't think its possible currently but atleast in the future.......

Hmm.. were the Afghan mujahidin de-armed after the Afghan war?
Why would PA ever de-arm the jihadits when it made India reach a solution over kashmir(as per you joint admin)?

Can you imagine the PR value of defeating Russians,blooding Americans and snatching Kashmir from India for the jihadits?

So many silly arguements, so little time

Originally Posted by pChan

My point is get over the territory mindset. Terrorism in India can at best be reduced by better internal security infrastructure. Even with peace you would still have nuts blowing up things but not having an entire state nuture these nuts will make a huge difference. Though thats not the primary reason behind this argument.

What makes you think that Pakistan would stop nurturing terrorits if they have their way in Kashmir?

Originally Posted by pChan

India's enemy is poverty, religious polarization & host of others factors that are endemic to india. Compromise in kashmir will only help in mitigating the above two problems by fostering trade & lessening tensions.

Horse puckey.

India's economic problems of poverty and other have zilch to do with Kashmir. The Kashmir problem has intensified since the mid'80s. India's economic climbup started around the early nineties. A stead y worsening of the Kashmir situation throughout the nineties has had little effect on the Indian economy, which is stifled by other factors such as govt. over-regulations, bureaucracy etc.

Social polarization also correlates strongly with economic polarization

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

I am not sure I am getting what you are saying. I don't believe Jammu & ladakh being with India would mean too much of a problem for pak. Border adjustments will be restricted to the valley. The rest of LOC should become the border.

Perhaps you forget that the only legal framework that can be reached is only after the larger question of the whole disputed princley state is resolved.

UN resolutions are null and void due to the shifts in population.

The state comprises of teritorry which is with India, Pakistan and PRC.

All three of these states do not want to discuss the issue on grounds which make them loose administrative powers over the land they control, and there is no reason for them to think otherwise.

I guess as they say there is solutions of this situation except May be:

-People who live under the control of these three nations (well mostly two) accept the ground reality, and nations stop lending support to any armed or unarmed sepratist movements.

-Long drawn out battle between two parties in which the military capability of one of them (to administer the region under their control) is completly wiped out.

So many silly arguement, so little time - part II

Originally Posted by pChan

No it won't solve all that but it does make life easier. Better economic integration is always correlated with lessening poverty. I disagree with the assessment that pakistan problem does not affect religious polarization in India. As always nothing will be "solved" but things should get better. And no nobody is handing over kashmir.

Why not do something at our end to help change that.

So let's talk economics. India has repeatedly tried to drive boost intercountry trade and has even granted Pakistan MFN status. What has been the Pakistani reasponse? And do realize, this hurts not only Indian businesses, but also Pakistani ones. Pakistani businesses cannot ship their products freely to India or take advantage of lower prices raw materials from India if they choose to do so. You had mentioned EU sometimes back. European nations did not cede territory, they simply opened up trade. We have not been able to convince Pakistan to do that. And not that we have not tried, but each time we did, they responded back with something sinister. The Lahore agreemetn was followed by Kargil and the parliamentary attacks, in case you have forgotten.

And talking about handing over Kashmir - you are talking about letting Pakistan administer Kashmir through a "joint management" system which you refuse to give specific of. How is this not handing over Kashmir?

Originally Posted by pChan

Ok you talk about compromise with china.
Sure china is more pragmatic than pakistan after all they still do business with us in-spite of border disputes.

You know one great thing about China? They know what is good for them. The key to deal with them is to understand what that is and then engage them. I am not sure Pakistan understands what is good for her.

Originally Posted by pChan

So to summarize pakistan wants water security. A joint admin in the valley & on that basis a mechanism to ensure their water security could be looked at as an option.

To summarize, Pakistan forst wants Kashmir and then wants to break up the rest of India

Originally Posted by pChan

The jihadis will oppose any solution short of ascension of kashmir to pak. Its upto pakistan & India to see how they get around that.

Blow them to hell and back.

Originally Posted by pChan

I am not a kid. Don't equate disagreement with immaturity. There is a considerable exhaustion in pakistan regarding this conflict. Going by your logic the problem will be solved either if pak disintegrates or if it climbs down & agrees LOC as border.

Pretty fair, I would say. Though I would personally not want a disintegration of Pakistan. Apart from the human suffering issue, who wants one headache to multiple to many?

Originally Posted by pChan

Even with saner heads in islamabad conversion of LOC to border is a long shot. I see nothing wrong with India negotiating in a position of strength. Maybe not under present circumstances but I do believe some "climb down" from the existing position could solve this problem. Kashmir is not given on a platter it could be used as a bargaining chip to bring normalcy. A lot of stars have to align though.

So you refuse to accept a stuatus quo solution (LOC ==border) saying that that would mean an unacceptable climbdown for Pakistan. But you advocate a climb down for India not only from the claim of the entire Kashmir territory (which is the current posture), but also from the current status quo (LOC == border). You want India to climb down all the way to "joint administration" of Kashmir or in other words, hand it over to Pakistan on a plate.

Here is the crux of the ridiculousness of your suggestions: you want to give a troublemaker whatever they want simply because resisting is too much pain. Its like telling a person being raped to relax and enjoy it

Last edited by antimony; 11 Sep 09, at 18:14.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

I am referring to the steady increase in terrirosm in the valley through then nineties. In the decades after independence, Kashmir was a much more stable place, in fact it was a thriving tourist center. Poverty in India was even more griding than it is now (we had the derisive Hindu rate of Growth). Equating the Kashmir situation with poverty is not only delusional, it is rank stupidity

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

Thats like telling a guy with a slit throat that his problem is that his shirt is all red with blood.

Can you please explain that?.

I yield on the poverty point may be I shouldn't have phrased the debate on economic development. India is doing fine what I wanted to say was compromise in kashmir will increase prosperity though it seems not to the extent that may make a difference in Indian strategic thinking (or so I feel).

Do you want to have a war with Pak now？If not ，you can't get the whole Kashmir territory，I think PChan have expressed it clearly。

I am happy with what we have now. getting the whole would have ben better, but as you said, the costs are somewhat high. I am not willing to give up what we have now without a fight. If Pakistan wants a war over the rest of Kashmir (the part we have) they are welcome to one. Please recall they they did try that in Kargil.

Originally Posted by Luke Gu

what basis do you have about this idea。India and Pak become enemy because of Kashmir 。If you can solve it，what's the motive that Pak break up the rest of India，revenge India break up Pak？

India and Pakistan have an existential difference, which Kashmir embodies. The whole basis of the formation of Pakistan was that Hindus and muslims would not be able to live peacefully under a hindu majority dominated country. Now India has an even less of a Muslim population that she would have if Partition had not happened, and yet is largely peaceful (I concede there have been flashpoints, but fairly stable compared to others). The success of India as a nation invadiates the very idea of Pakistan, since their theory that people of different religious makeup cannot co-exist is pushed to the bin.

Cheak out the link to Wall Street Journal that Ghototkacha gave.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

I am not willing to give up what we have now without a fight. If Pakistan wants a war over the rest of Kashmir (the part we have) they are welcome to one. Please recall they they did try that in Kargil.

I never want India give up Kashmir territory cotrolled by India.I just hope you can solive the border dispute as Line of actual control。

They already have water security. India has never blocked water to Pak in the past 60 years. Not even during wars.

Agree with that.

Originally Posted by n21

Why they want it? Because the water also flows through Indian Punjab as well.That is what they want to control.
You need to read more about Pakistan's obsession about "Mughal rule in India".
As I said,Kashmir is not the issue. It wont be stopped by joint admin.

I know that - their naming of missiles and all. The concept of pak doing a "mughal" over India is completely ludicrous because it is not possible unless martians come over to help them. They can't wrest any piece of land from India. I believe what you are really trying to say is pak will always be antagonistic to India untill they conquer it. That would put their mindset on par with al-qaeda type jihadists/radicalism. The nation still has a middle class and it seems they intended to use violence only to gain leverage in kashmir but enduring rivaly has morphed that to a "destroy em" posture.

Originally Posted by n21

Hmm.. were the Afghan mujahidin de-armed after the Afghan war?
Why would PA ever de-arm the jihadits when it made India reach a solution over kashmir(as per you joint admin)?

Can you imagine the PR value of defeating Russians,blooding Americans and snatching Kashmir from India for the jihadits?

The jihadists (taliban) were not disarmed becoz they gave pak influence in afghanistan (strategic depth thing). I agree that if we come to a solution purely out of "safety" or "cost" PA would tempted to escalate to drive India out. How this resolution is framed is also very important. One that takes into account changes in pak society, accepting mfn status & economic integration. For that the "moderates" should call the shots in pak. Lots of problems there.

Originally Posted by n21

The fight is more than just Kashmir.

This is where we differ. You believe that PA uses jihadists to achieve their goals - true but more than that its the jihadists who use PA/pak for their own motives. The PA/ISI did more harm to pak than India could ever hope to - what does that statement tell u & who wins - jihadists. The fight is definitely about more than just kashmir but only for the jihadists not for pak.

So let's talk economics. India has repeatedly tried to drive boost intercountry trade and has even granted Pakistan MFN status. What has been the Pakistani reasponse? And do realize, this hurts not only Indian businesses, but also Pakistani ones. Pakistani businesses cannot ship their products freely to India or take advantage of lower prices raw materials from India if they choose to do so. You had mentioned EU sometimes back. European nations did not cede territory, they simply opened up trade. We have not been able to convince Pakistan to do that. And not that we have not tried, but each time we did, they responded back with something sinister. The Lahore agreemetn was followed by Kargil and the parliamentary attacks, in case you have forgotten.

Yes it pak that is blocking trade. Coming to a compromise could undo that & that benefits India.

Originally Posted by antimony

And talking about handing over Kashmir - you are talking about letting Pakistan administer Kashmir through a "joint management" system which you refuse to give specific of. How is this not handing over Kashmir?

"Handing over" is loss of complete sovereignty in my book.

Originally Posted by antimony

Blow them to hell and back.

Couldn't agree more . That is what is happening now. But it takes two to tango in kashmir. We are merely addressing symptoms why not go for the cure.

Originally Posted by antimony

So you refuse to accept a stuatus quo solution (LOC ==border) saying that that would mean an unacceptable climbdown for Pakistan. But you advocate a climb down for India not only from the claim of the entire Kashmir territory (which is the current posture), but also from the current status quo (LOC == border). You want India to climb down all the way to "joint administration" of Kashmir or in other words, hand it over to Pakistan on a plate.

Pak climbs down too. Pak claims the entire J&K all they get in return is shared influence with India in the valley alone. POK could also be negotiated to be included in Joint admin.

Originally Posted by antimony

Here is the crux of the ridiculousness of your suggestions: you want to give a troublemaker whatever they want simply because resisting is too much pain. Its like telling a person being raped to relax and enjoy it

The crux of the matter is...
India's plan is simple force pak to convert LOC to border. And pak thinks they can bleed us & kick us out of kashmir. Do you think they can bleed us out of kashmir? You would say Hell No!!!. In the same vein if you ask them do you think you would accept LOC as border they are bound to say - Hell No.

You see where I am going with this. A compromise is a bridge between these two views. All that talk about climbing down,national legitimacy, doing a mughal, NA/jammu/ladakh just clouds the issue IMHO.